Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

What are you talking about? The guy bought books for his Kindle. He *bought* them. Say what you will about, "No, this is licensing," but check Amazon's website and there's a button that says, "Buy now with 1-click". *Buy*.

Yes, he *bought* the licenses. What is it with you slashdotters? You actually expect to receive tangible goods in exchange for your hard earned dollars? That just doesn't make any sense.

On a related note, many of you are unaware that I am the owner of all paper money, and I've just granted all of you the license to use it. The next person to demand an actual good will have their money license revoked and will have to return all cash to me. Thank you.

You have a very interesting point. However, he's petitioning the Utah state government, which he is not a constituent of. Does the 1st apply to just your local/state/national government, or to every local/state government?

Back during the "Vietnam Era" (it was undeclared so I STILL won't call it a war) there was a guy who wrote "P*ss on LBJ" on the outside of letters he sent. After a while he noticed that Secret Service agents were following him around. He confronted one and, upon finding out he was Secret Service asked him why he was being followed. Answer: "If enough people p*ssed on LBJ it would kill him."

[Citation Needed]

I could see the Secret Service investigating someone who makes somewhat outrageous comments about the president. However, a background check and quick interview are the most that would happen. Unless the person in question has some other mental/emotional issues, there's no way the Secret Service is going to waste their time with it.

However, the GP never said the word sue. He instead suggested talking to a lawyer. This seems to be the most prudent course of action. The law is a VERY complicated topic, and your explanation here doesn't begin to get into all the nuances of contract law. And, since neither you nor I nor the GP understands these nuances, speaking to a lawyer is the next logical step.

A federal judge has thrown out the conviction of the senator who educated us all about the true nature of the Internet. Ted Stevens had been convicted last fall of lying about free home renovations that he received from an oil contractor, 8 days before he lost his Senate re-election bid. The judge blasted the US Department of Justice prosecutors for mishandling the case in ways that might rise to the level of criminality. "In 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approach the mishandling and misconduct in this case," Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said. He called the allegations "shocking and disturbing." According to the article, "Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October."

Upstart online brokerage site Zecco had an unfortunate April Fool's day snafu that they are claiming was an honest mistake. Users logged on to find larger balances than they should have, sometimes millions of dollars extra, and many of those users started trading with the nonexistent money. Happy April Fool's Day. "... when Zecco realized it, the company apparently started to force sell, even at a loss, charging the losses to the customers along with a '$19.99 broker-assisted trading fee.' Oops."

One observation during the less than 170 years when this could be detected gives this, roughly speaking, 10-1 odds against being an only one-in-1700 year event.

What makes you think this could only be detected in the last 170 years? Yes, we didn't have large networks of copper wire strung across the country until that point. But even the summary talks of some much easier to observe products of this event, such as auroras being visible at the equator.

OK, educate me: what is the difference between "fundamentalist" and "protestant." I was under the impression that protestants were "protesting" the changes that the Catholic Church had made, and were therefore returning to the "fundamentals" of Christianity or something wacky like that.

This being one of the reasons why protestants refuse to accept evolution: the Catholic Church does accept it. AFAIK, only protestants refuse to accept evolution as truth.

Ok, we're veering a bit off topic here, but I'll try and clarify this quickly.

There's 2 main branches of Christianity (and a few other small ones) Orthodox and Catholic. From the Catholic branch, the Protestants broke off for a variety of reasons. If you boil it all down, it's basically that Protestants wanted to focus the religion more on the Bible than the collection of Catholic Dogma. (Anglicans are in-between, being part Protestant part Catholic)

Within Protestantism there are many different branches, all with slightly different interpretations of the bible and different meanings of it. They also have very different liberal/conservative viewpoints buried inside those interpretations.

"Fundamentalism" was a movement within Protestant religions started in the early 20th Century, mainly among Presbyterians and Baptists. It was started in response to perceived threats to Christianity and advocated a strict adherence to the "Five Fundamentals". They are:

1) The Bible is directly created with the aid of the Holy Spirit and is without error and free of contradiction.

2) Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

3) Jesus's death was for atonement of our sins.

4) The Resurrection

5) Jesus's miracles were a historical reality.

However, many (most?) protestants don't believe in these, especially number 1.